It would hardly be good news for most chief executives to hear US lawmakers
lambast their company for systemic "failure of management" on
board an oil rig that suffered an explosion which resulted in the deaths of
11 men.

But Bob Dudley, BP's new chief executive, is likely to be breathing a partial sigh of relief that the official report into the Gulf of Mexico spill does not appear to contain a smoking gun pointing straight at one of his staff. In the months after BP's Macondo well exploded on April 20 last year, the British oil giant was the most visible responsible party. As the majority owner, BP was the sole organisation charged with stopping the leak and clearing up the mess.

However, since the flow stopped in July, America's attention has gradually started to encompass BP's contractors, Transocean and Halliburton, as the politicians and lawyers look around for people to share the blame for the accident.

On Thursday, BP's shares were down slightly, off 2.35 at 496.9p, after the White House oil spill commission accused Halliburton and Transocean for cost-cutting and complacency in the run-up to the spill.

Tensions between the three companies were evident. BP said it was glad that "multiple parties" were mentioned. Halliburton and Transocean released echoing statements that "Halliburton acted at the direction of BP" and Transocean's procedures "were crafted and directed by BP engineers and approved in advance by federal regulators".

Thursday's verdict also riled other oil industry executives, in particular Rex Tillerson, chief executive of ExxonMobil, the world's biggest listed oil company. "I do not agree this is an industry-wide problem. We have best practices. We have risk-management standards."

Richard Griffith, analyst at Evolution, interprets "systemic industry wide and government regulatory failure" as good news for BP.

BP estimates its final liabilities at $40bn (£25.8bn), but this figure will be much higher if gross negligence is proved. There was no mention of that term in Thursday's extract. If no one accuses it of negligence, it will make it more likely that BP can recover up to 35pc of its total cost from the co-owners of the exploded well, Mitsui and Anadarko, either through negotiation or the courts.

Mr Griffith notes: "We've argued for some time that it would be hard to prove gross negligence against BP. The report may provide grounds for BP to claw back monies from licence partners and possibly Transocean and Halliburton."

Jason Kenney, an oil and gas analyst at ING, also viewed the report as positive. "It's certainly what we were hoping for," he said. "It's a bit of pressure relief for BP, because it'll be able to spread the burden and hopefully recover costs from partners. Ken Feinberg [the man in charge of compensating victims] said his $20bn fund is two times overstated. And then of course the divestment programme is going ahead of expectations, giving BP significant cash flexibility."

However, there are still uncertainties for BP. Just because Transocean and Halliburton are also blamed, this does not prevent the US authorities potentially trying to slap negligence charges on all three parties under a range of possible civil and criminal procedures. There is the lawsuit filed by the US government under the Clean Water Act with unlimited damages. And some Gulf Coast residents have opted out of the compensation fund and want to pursue BP through the courts.

Mr Kenney recognises the unknowns but still thinks BP will have a much better year than last. "I would be unhappy if the share price hadn't broken through 600p by the end of the year," he says. "But it's really going to depend on how the litigation pans out."

The extract from the White House panel's report on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill found "complacency" on safety and a cost-cutting culture by BP, Transocean and Halliburton.

Key points of the report

Better management would "certainly have prevented the blow-out", it concluded.

Failings identified were "systemic" in the industry and that without reform a similar disaster "might well recur".

Workers on board the rig were accused of making several critical mistakes, including the misinterpretation of a vital "negative pressure test" to check that the well had been properly sealed.